Star Trek is quaint

[Romo Lampkin]

I think that the series have aged in different ways. TOS although very much a product of the 60s is still attention grabbing, it's actually quite a weird, experimental show for the most part and it works very well in that regard. There's a certain trepidation about space exploration which is conveyed through the surreal situations they encounter. TNG by contrast, I used to rank this as my favourite sci fi show of all time until I saw BSG, I still think it's very much up there but I'm starting to think TOS and DS9 were better shows. That being said apart from lower production standards (everything seems pastel and slightly cheap in places e.g. LCARS), DS9 and TNG are very mellow by today's standards and therein lies the rub: do you think that this slower pace allows for better storylines, deeper themes and character development? Or is it akin to reading a nineteenth-century novel, i.e. yeah sure there are big ideas and complex characters but it's all muted under this kind of awkward language and a plodding plot?

(For the record everything from this present decade isn't the end word on what constitutes good television, everything is 'dated' from the moment it's made and I don't believe in conforming to trends but I'm just interested in teasing out how these shows differ from modern ones because even when I was watching them 20 years ago, I sometimes thought, hm, this is kind of boring, yet rewarding at the same time).

 

[MacLeod]

What makes a film/book/TV series etc.. stand the test of time is good storytelling and interesting characters. In the case of film and TV the best special effects can't save a badly written story. However a great stroy can overcome bad FX.

 

[Romo Lampkin]

I agree, but set design, camera quality and so on does have an effect. I think the writing in DS9 is generally pretty good, but it's a lot more placid/tranquil compared to modern shows. 90s trek is almost from the nineteenth-century compared to what's done now. I dunno, but I think the sonic wallpaper idea didn't just include the music, there is a certain dullness to all these shows from that era, not to say they're bad, TNG really hit the mark at certain points and DS9 is good quality. Voy and ENT are just annoying though, particularly Voy with the way in which it was written.

 

[benjaminh]

I think that the series have aged in different ways. TOS although very much a product of the 60s is still attention grabbing, it's actually quite a weird, experimental show for the most part and it works very well in that regard. There's a certain trepidation about space exploration which is conveyed through the surreal situations they encounter. TNG by contrast, I used to rank this as my favourite sci fi show of all time until I saw BSG, I still think it's very much up there but I'm starting to think TOS and DS9 were better shows. That being said apart from lower production standards (everything seems pastel and slightly cheap in places e.g. LCARS), DS9 and TNG are very mellow by today's standards and therein lies the rub: do you think that this slower pace allows for better storylines, deeper themes and character development? Or is it akin to reading a nineteenth-century novel, i.e. yeah sure there are big ideas and complex characters but it's all muted under this kind of awkward language and a plodding plot?

(For the record everything from this present decade isn't the end word on what constitutes good television, everything is 'dated' from the moment it's made and I don't believe in conforming to trends but I'm just interested in teasing out how these shows differ from modern ones because even when I was watching them 20 years ago, I sometimes thought, hm, this is kind of boring, yet rewarding at the same time).

I was going to ask what your favorite shows are, but I see from your link that you're a big BSG fan. I like that show too! Although, for various reasons, overall I like Star Trek better.

But I see what you mean. The Treks of the 90s—TNG, DS9, and Voyager—are in some ways dated today. For good or ill, shows today are faster paced, and have more violence and sex. I like a lot of shows today, although my favorites—shows like Bosch, Orange is the New Black, Murdoch's Mysteries, TURN, etc.—are not as popular as Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead.

To take Game of Thrones for purposes of comparison, one difference there in addition to sex and violence is money. GoT has c. $7 million to play with per episode, and only needs to make 10 episodes a year. In contrast, if you adjust for inflation, I think the Trek shows of the 1990s would costs c. $2.5 million in today's dollars, and they made an almost mind-boggling 26 shows per season. The bottom line is that if you have triple the budget of Star Trek, and almost no restrictions in terms of violence and sex, you can make a very gripping show. But is it better?

As a Trek fan, I'll take minority position that a really good Trek episode is better than most GoT episodes, because of better writing, more "optimistic" themes, greater cast diversity, less sexism, more thought-provoking ideas, etc. I doubt, however, that you'd convince most of today's younger viewers of this.

And, in any case, it would only be the best episodes of Trek that could defeat most episodes of GoT (at least in my mind). This is why I spend a fair amount of my Trek time sorting out which episodes are good and even great, and which episodes are duds or even dreadful. Honestly, I think about half of all Star Trek episodes are duds....But the good ones still really soar imho.

 

[MacLeod]

I agree, but set design, camera quality and so on does have an effect. I think the writing in DS9 is generally pretty good, but it's a lot more placid/tranquil compared to modern shows. 90s trek is almost from the nineteenth-century compared to what's done now. I dunno, but I think the sonic wallpaper idea didn't just include the music, there is a certain dullness to all these shows from that era, not to say they're bad, TNG really hit the mark at certain points and DS9 is good quality. Voy and ENT are just annoying though, particularly Voy with the way in which it was written.

But doesn't that just highlight that so long as the storytelling/characters are interesting it can overcome negatives to a certain extent. If the storytelling/characters are poor the negatives are magnified.

 

[Tim Walker]

Thinking about comments people have made.... Perhaps Trek would work best with a shorter season, that is , considerably fewer episodes per season, if there could be an over all increase in quality.

With fewer episodes, only the best scripts would be used. Or at least, the range of good to best. I don't like the idea of "dud" Trek episodes.

 

[Romo Lampkin]

I was going to ask what your favorite shows are, but I see from your link that you're a big BSG fan. I like that show too! Although, for various reasons, overall I like Star Trek better.

But I see what you mean. The Treks of the 90s—TNG, DS9, and Voyager—are in some ways dated today. For good or ill, shows today are faster paced, and have more violence and sex. I like a lot of shows today, although my favorites—shows like Bosch, Orange is the New Black, Murdoch's Mysteries, TURN, etc.—are not as popular as Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead.

To take Game of Thrones for purposes of comparison, one difference there in addition to sex and violence is money. GoT has c. $7 million to play with per episode, and only needs to make 10 episodes a year. In contrast, if you adjust for inflation, I think the Trek shows of the 1990s would costs c. $2.5 million in today's dollars, and they made an almost mind-boggling 26 shows per season. The bottom line is that if you have triple the budget of Star Trek, and almost no restrictions in terms of violence and sex, you can make a very gripping show. But is it better?

As a Trek fan, I'll take minority position that a really good Trek episode is better than most GoT episodes, because of better writing, more "optimistic" themes, greater cast diversity, less sexism, more thought-provoking ideas, etc. I doubt, however, that you'd convince most of today's younger viewers of this.

And, in any case, it would only be the best episodes of Trek that could defeat most episodes of GoT (at least in my mind). This is why I spend a fair amount of my Trek time sorting out which episodes are good and even great, and which episodes are duds or even dreadful. Honestly, I think about half of all Star Trek episodes are duds....But the good ones still really soar imho.

Yes, I think that's what I'm getting at, the slower burn of old Trek allows from some thought provoking action and character development. The Inner Light would be a good example of that, incredibly dull planet, dull aliens, initially an oh no, here we go again, everyone is acting weird and there will be a reveal that they're omnipotent/evil aliens etc, but it becomes amazing as it progresses. TOS seems strangely akin to a modern show, despite the 60s kitsch, that's weird compared to say TNG trek and DS9 to a lesser extent. There's something attention grabbing about it and rewatching it again, things I would have taken for granted before seem very experimental/psychedelic. I think the sonic wallpaper music really lets TNG and DS9 down, despite being great shows. TOS by contrast has one of the most iconic scores in history which really evokes the moods of the scenes, we probably have the same idea of what music plays during the fight sequences, the gross out sequences, the tense, intractable situation sequences etc.

But doesn't that just highlight that so long as the storytelling/characters are interesting it can overcome negatives to a certain extent. If the storytelling/characters are poor the negatives are magnified.

Totally.

 

[Romo Lampkin]

Thinking about comments people have made.... Perhaps Trek would work best with a shorter season, that is , considerably fewer episodes per season, if there could be an over all increase in quality.

With fewer episodes, only the best scripts would be used. Or at least, the range of good to best. I don't like the idea of "dud" Trek episodes.

Yeah, I think this was one of the problems, better to have 10 high quality episodes than 26 ones where half are great and half are filler. It was a different era though and most of them are pretty good anyway when they're on a roll e.g. later seasons of TNG and DS9

 

[MacLeod]

But we also have audiance expectations, which can heavily influence how we percieve something. If we go in with lower expectations we are less likely to be dissapointed, go in with high expecations and we can be more easily dissapointed

 

[STEPhon IT]

What makes a film/book/TV series etc.. stand the test of time is good storytelling and interesting characters. In the case of film and TV the best special effects can't save a badly written story. However a great stroy can overcome bad FX.

I completely agree with this but Zack Snyder is making a horrifying attempt to prove us wrong.

 

[Shawnster]

Thinking about comments people have made.... Perhaps Trek would work best with a shorter season, that is , considerably fewer episodes per season, if there could be an over all increase in quality.

With fewer episodes, only the best scripts would be used. Or at least, the range of good to best. I don't like the idea of "dud" Trek episodes.

I really dislike the current trend of making an entire season 13 episodes, and, in the case of online services, dropping them all at once. It doesn't take that long to watch all 13 (3 months, if you stretch it to once a week) and the "off season" between seasons is too long. Before the announcement of the new upcoming Trek series, I imagined that, if they did a 13 episode season, Trek would be best served by having 4 mini-series/movies that came out every 3 months. It would provide the same number of episodes but give viewers 4 distinct stories per year and the wait time between stories would be shorter.

 

[MacLeod]

Nothing new about waiting months between seasons, at least if you are say in the UK.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I was going to ask what your favorite shows are, but I see from your link that you're a big BSG fan. I like that show too! Although, for various reasons, overall I like Star Trek better.

But I see what you mean. The Treks of the 90s—TNG, DS9, and Voyager—are in some ways dated today. For good or ill, shows today are faster paced, and have more violence and sex. I like a lot of shows today, although my favorites—shows like Bosch, Orange is the New Black, Murdoch's Mysteries, TURN, etc.—are not as popular as Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead.

To take Game of Thrones for purposes of comparison, one difference there in addition to sex and violence is money. GoT has c. $7 million to play with per episode, and only needs to make 10 episodes a year. In contrast, if you adjust for inflation, I think the Trek shows of the 1990s would costs c. $2.5 million in today's dollars, and they made an almost mind-boggling 26 shows per season. The bottom line is that if you have triple the budget of Star Trek, and almost no restrictions in terms of violence and sex, you can make a very gripping show. But is it better?

As a Trek fan, I'll take minority position that a really good Trek episode is better than most GoT episodes, because of better writing, more "optimistic" themes, greater cast diversity, less sexism, more thought-provoking ideas, etc. I doubt, however, that you'd convince most of today's younger viewers of this.

And, in any case, it would only be the best episodes of Trek that could defeat most episodes of GoT (at least in my mind). This is why I spend a fair amount of my Trek time sorting out which episodes are good and even great, and which episodes are duds or even dreadful. Honestly, I think about half of all Star Trek episodes are duds....But the good ones still really soar imho.

GoT has less cast diversity than Star Trek? I haven't counted everyone out (and I'm sure it depends on which Trek you compare) but that doesn't sound right. I'm also not 100% that it's more sexist, either. Again, depending on the incarnation.

I really dislike the current trend of making an entire season 13 episodes, and, in the case of online services, dropping them all at once. It doesn't take that long to watch all 13 (3 months, if you stretch it to once a week) and the "off season" between seasons is too long. Before the announcement of the new upcoming Trek series, I imagined that, if they did a 13 episode season, Trek would be best served by having 4 mini-series/movies that came out every 3 months. It would provide the same number of episodes but give viewers 4 distinct stories per year and the wait time between stories would be shorter.

I'd much rather wait months or even a year or more than have the story doled out in irritatingly drawn out bits stretched out over 9 months with repeatedly unexpected breaks in the story. A truly great story is much more easily appreciated when you can view it in its entirety in a relatively short time, anyway, otherwise you risk forgetting details that happened as the story progresses. And I don't need one single show to be on all the time in order to fill my entertainment needs. The time spent waiting is time I can use to appreciate other great stories (or rewatch old classics).

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I completely agree with this but Zack Snyder is making a horrifying attempt to prove us wrong.

Says you-the movie was great for me and the intended fan base, and at least it succeeded in that regard. And it was just like the current comic books, which for me is great. People seem to want more out of this movie than they should have been expecting, which is stupid.

 

[benjaminh]

GoT has less cast diversity than Star Trek? I haven't counted everyone out (and I'm sure it depends on which Trek you compare) but that doesn't sound right. .....

 

[STEPhon IT]

Says you-the movie was great for me and the intended fan base, and at least it succeeded in that regard. And it was just like the current comic books, which for me is great. People seem to want more out of this movie than they should have been expecting, which is stupid.

Very true, after the total piece of sh*t called Man of Steel, there shouldn't had been any expectations of making something remotely decent. It's like current comic book, huh? Maybe that's the problem, no wonder DC is revamping their comics AGAIN in this years cliched gimmick DC Rebirth.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

That pretty much proves the point that Trek doesn't hold a candle to GoT when it comes to representing diverse female characters.

As for other types of diversity - which non-white recurring characters were important/long lasting enough in the storyline for me to actually remember them off the top of my head?

Uhura, Sulu

Worf, Geordie, Guinan, Ogawa, Gowron, Lursa and Betor

Sisko, Jake Sisko, Worf, Martok, Gowron, Kassidy, and Alexander

Khal Drogo, Grey Worm, Missandei, Syrio Forel, and Hizdahr Loraq

Not a huge difference, especially considering that many of the Trek characters are related to each other.

 

[Forbin]

That GoT graphic proves it's diverse! They have blondes, brunettes AND redheads!

 

[MacLeod]

Very true, after the total piece of sh*t called Man of Steel, there shouldn't had been any expectations of making something remotely decent. It's like current comic book, huh? Maybe that's the problem, no wonder DC is revamping their comics AGAIN in this years cliched gimmick DC Rebirth.

Well I would say 80% of MoS was fine, just the final battle betwen Zod and Superman, to me the film didn't need it. But we all have different tastes.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Very true, after the total piece of sh*t called Man of Steel, there shouldn't had been any expectations of making something remotely decent. It's like current comic book, huh? Maybe that's the problem, no wonder DC is revamping their comics AGAIN in this years cliched gimmick DC Rebirth.

Aww, poor baby, you didn't get enough of the romance of the Donnerverse in Superman Returns? Maybe you and others that loved it should have spoken up and defended it against all of the dissing it received so that there'd be more movies like it. But you all didn't, so it died at the box office (admittedly due to Hollywood accounting than anything else on its part, since it did make a lot of money.)

The thing is, movie-goers in 2006 just didn't care for a retread of the Donnerverse, so the movie wasn't a success (amazing how they love it now due to nostalgia, though; something I knew would happen back then. ) People wanted to see Superman kick more booty, and so they got Man of Steel and the current movie, all based on the popularity of the Nolanverse Batman movies. Different times, different approaches (and nobody says that DC/Warners has to speak the MCU exactly: besides, the same thing will be happening in Civil War next month,and I don't see any complaints about the dust-up between Captain America and Iron Man in that movie.)